Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

Curious news.  On the one hand, making a reliable transmission for a tank has been historically difficult for a lot of designers.  On the other hand, I'm not sure how the South Koreans are having such a big problem.  Their transmission can't be that much more compact than the German one they are using as a substitute, because they both fit into the same vehicle.  It's unlikely to be much more advanced too, since those RENK transmissions have all the bells and whistles.  Also, it was designed decades ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this might sound retarded, but what sort of thickness of good ol´ regular steel do you need to stop 75 or 76mm HE shells? assuming good quality armour steel of course, not German "shatters like glass" types of steel. I am losing sleep over this. I am assuming that it is 30mm or so given the side armour of tanks like AMX-30, Leopard 1 and Type-74, as i assume that the designers would not be stupid enough to leave the tanks vulnerable to one of the most common weapons in soviet inventory.

Edited by Toimisto
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Toimisto said:

So, this might sound retarded, but what sort of thickness of good ol´ regular steel do you need to stop 75 or 76mm HE shells? assuming good quality armour steel of course, not German "shatters like glass" types of steel. I am losing sleep over this. I am assuming that it is 30mm or so given the side armour of tanks like AMX-30, Leopard 1 and Type-74, as i assume that the designers would not be stupid enough to leave the tanks vulnerable to one of the most common weapons in soviet inventory.


It depends exactly how and when the HE round explodes.

If the HE rounds are exploding overhead and throwing shell fragments, the Western paper-tanks should be safe.  In fact, even the aluminum-armored M113 was safe against this sort of threat.  HE round fragments have good initial velocity, but very poor sectional density and aerodynamics, so they are crummy armor penetrators.  The invention of proximity fuses at the end of WWII meant that it got a lot easier to have large-caliber HE shells explode before they hit the ground.  The proximity fuse detected the ground and triggered the shell some distance before it hit the ground.  This meant that the fragments spread from a higher level above the ground and chewed up more area around the shell strike, which is very good for pulverizing infantry.  I'm not sure when the Soviets got proximity fuses, but I doubt they were too far behind the USA.

If the HE rounds are exploding on contact with the armor of the vehicle, the armor needs to withstand not just the impact of the fragments but also the blast overpressure wave from the explosion.  Here again I would guess that the Western tanks are safe, since 30mm would be considered quite thick for belly armor against mines.  That said, there is a difference in the sort of steel that is ideal for armor against armor-piercing shells and armor that is good for dealing with blast overpressure.  Armor against armor-piercing shells is ideally rather hard but a bit brittle, armor against blast overpressure is ideally tough but a bit soft (toughness and hardness are always a trade-off in steel).

If the HE round in question is an APHE round that has some degree of structural integrity and is fused to explode a few fractions of a second after hitting something, I think the Leo 1 is screwed.  Regular HE rounds don't really overmatch thin armor well, since overmatch essentially involves the shell bending it's flight trajectory abruptly after hitting something hard.  Regular HE shells have enough of a shell wall to generate fragments, and they're not really well-suited for such extreme maneuvers.  But semi-AP HE projectiles have enough of an armor-piercing body, and usually have delayed-action fuses such that they could probably poke right through.

So as long as those 76mm guns have APHE, AP or they could pose a threat from the side.  Regular HE, especially with a contact or proximity fuse will probably not work well.  That said, there was also a HEAT round for the 76mm field gun, the UBP-344A.  I haven't been able to find performance, but it could be that those were a threat from the front.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Toimisto said:

Sort of what i imagined then, given the armour of A-32 and the T-50 light tank, which if i remember correctly were considered "Shell-Proof".


According to Richard Ogorkiewicz's Seven Habits of Highly Effective AFV Designers, if you make a monocoque tracked vehicle hull out of RHA steel, about the point that it's structurally sound as a vehicle hull, it is also "shell proof."  So the only way an AFV could really fail to be shell proof is if it's open-topped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bangladesh refused to purchase Russian T-72B3 in favor of Chinese modernized tanks

from Gurkhan


   On February 3, the Ministry of Defense of Bangladesh reported that negotiations between Bangladesh and Russia on the purchase of T-72B3 tanks failed. Reason: Russia asked for too high a price.
    As sources in Bangladesh write, the price offered by the Russian side is at least $ 3 million for each tank. "For tanks manufactured over 20 years ago, this is an unacceptably high price," the Bengalis say.
    Earlier, the Ministry of Defense of Bangladesh reported that the T-72B3 purchased in Russia would be used to form a new tank regiment. Currently, Bangladesh is reforming its armed forces, with an increase in the number of infantry divisions from 7 to 10. This will automatically require an increase in the tank fleet.

  As an alternative to the Russian tank, the Bengali military chose the old Chinese "Type 59" with the upgrading kit "T series main battle tanks upgrade kit" from NORINKO. At the same time, modernization will be carried out at the capacities of the local tank-repair enterprise.

   The upgraded tank will receive the designation "59G Durjoy" (Du Qiaoyi) and will generally correspond to the Chinese tank VT-3, delivered to Tanzania and first demonstrated at the parade in 2011.


article in English


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 2805662 said:


For a second I thought they were highlighting the benefit of child labour in their tank-building workforce. 

Yeah, editing is not very good, confusing at first.


13 hours ago, Belesarius said:

They are useful things to have around.

I guess he is reffering to age of that thing. It is like if T-64 had a musket on top of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photo from Andrey's blog, Songun-915. ERA layout is not very good near the gun.



5 minutes ago, Toimisto said:

So, whats wrong with the K2 other than the automotive problems? seen people being negative about it a lot lately.

So far only serious/noticeable problems are with transmission. I didn't heard about any other problem as serious as it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)

      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.

      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;

      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?

  • Create New...